[FreeRep]

I agree, as a very conservative prolife evangelical conservative, I've been supportive of the Miers nomination because I support President Bush in this time of war and I think it's time for a conservative evangelical on the Supreme Court. However, now I am very concern about what she said about abortion in the 1993 speech, and I will not support someone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

[Sometimes A River]

I don't understand why anyone would think she's a conservative.

Just because she's an Evangelical? I guess Jimmah Carter was too.

[Cboldt]

I will not support someone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

Not even if they are an evangelical Christian who is personally opposed to abortion?

[presidentsfriend]

I`m also a pro life Christian that was trying to support Miers,until today.I/we have been praying to THE LORD,that if she does not stand for the things of God, then may she not be the one.This is 1993,long after her conversion to Christ!

IT`S OVER FOR HER,I HOPE.

[no dems]

I am in the same boat as you and up until today, I was leaning toward her. Read the following and that will seal the deal for you; NO TO HARRIET!!

Miers parroted Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy's exact reasons for not overturning Roe v. Wade while professing her deep abiding respect for stare decisis.

Miers says "Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent"

Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy refer to the stare decisis of Roe no less than 11 times in their opinion, making sure to cement it as Court precedent. Miers's answer binds her to deference.

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from Miers that she will turn to stare decisis and not vote to overturn Roe.

[counterpunch]

Compare Harriet Miers's answer to question #28 on the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire paraphrasing the wording of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and expanded abortion rights:

"Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to the question. Thus, whether a prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling."

—Harriet Miers


"So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed."

U.S. Supreme Court
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)


The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable
So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable

whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent
whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism

whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling
whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it


Miers parroted Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy's exact reasons for not overturning Roe v. Wade while professing her deep abiding respect for stare decisis.

Miers says "Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent"

Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy refer to the stare decisis of Roe no less than 11 times in their opinion, making sure to cement it as Court precedent. Miers's answer binds her to deference.

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from Miers that she will turn to stare decisis and not vote to overturn Roe.